Shaw et al v. United States Postal Service

Filing 29

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Parties' 28 Stipulated MOTION to Continue Trial and Scheduling Order. The Court denies in part the motion to the extent it requests referral to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference. 5-day Ju ry Trial is set for 9/8/2025 at 9:30 AM before District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson. Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 2/10/2025, Discovery Motions due by 3/10/2025, Discovery completed by 4/10/2025, Dispositive motions due b y 5/8/2025, Settlement Conference held no later than 7/8/2025, Motions in Limine due by 8/4/2025, Proposed jury instructions and agreed LCR 16.1 Pretrial Order due by 8/18/2025, Trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions, and deposition designations due by 8/25/2025. Signed by District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson. (SB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
BRANDON SHAW and EMILY
SHAW, individually, and as husband
and wife, including their marital
community comprised thereto, and on
behalf of T.S., a minor,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL
SERVICE, a government entity,
Defendant.

)
) No. 2:23-cv-00849
)
)
) SECOND STIPULATED MOTION
) AND ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

STIPULATION
COMES NOW the parties, through their respective counsel and pursuant to LCR 7(d)(1)
and 10(g), stipulate to the extension of the current Order Setting Bench Trial Date and Related
Dates (ECF No. 19) and continue the bench trial date currently scheduled for June 23, 2025, to a
new trial date of September 8, 2025, as well as related deadlines.
There is good cause to grant this stipulated request for two reasons. First and most
importantly, the parties have agreed to engage in ADR. With the current deadlines in place, both
parties would be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars on experts and discovery while

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
TO CONTINUE TRIAL: 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

simultaneously preparing for ADR. The costs and hours spent on experts and discovery would
likely foreclose the possibility of reaching a settlement at ADR.
Second, the parties have continued in diligence in discovery, retaining and preparing
experts, and advancing their case. Neither party has unduly delayed.
Therefore, the parties respectfully request the Court extend the trial date and related
deadlines based on the reasons set forth above. The suggested new dates are as follows:
Event
JURY TRIAL SET FOR 9:30 a.m. on
Length of Trial
Disclosure of expert testimony under FRCP 226(a)(2) due
All motions related to discovery must be filed by
All dispositive motions and motions challenging expert
witness testimony must be filed by this date (see LCR 7(d)).
Such motions must be noted for consideration no later than
28 days after this date (see LCR 7(d)).
Settlement conference, if mediation has been requested by
the parties per LCR 39.1, held no later than
All motions in limine must be filed by
Proposed jury instructions and agreed LCR 16.1 Pretrial
Order due, including exhibit list with completed authenticity,
admissibility, and objections fields
Trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions, and deposition
designations due
Pretrial conference

Date
September 8, 2025
5 days
February 10, 2025
March 10, 2025
April 8, 2025

July 8, 2025
August 4, 2025
September 8, 2025
August 25, 2025
TBD

The parties also request that the Court refer this matter to a Magistrate Judge for mediation
pursuant to LCR 39.1.

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
TO CONTINUE TRIAL: 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Counsel for the United States have conferred and agree that
mediation would be beneficial and could potentially resolve this lawsuit without the need for
further litigation. The Parties agree that referral to a Magistrate Judge for mediation could help
potentially resolve this case and, therefore, good cause exists to refer this case to mediation.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 24th day of September 2024.
Earl And Edwards, PLLC

United States Attorney’s Office

____/s/ Corbin O. Earl
CORBIN O. EARL, WSBA #52300
Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/ Derek T. Taylor
DEREK T. TAYLOR, WSBA#46944
Special United States Attorney EDWA
Attorney for Defendant
ORDER

The Court finds good cause to extend the case schedule as requested by the parties, and
therefore GRANTS IN PART that portion of their stipulated motion, with the modification that
the Court adds a deadline for completion of discovery and adjusts accordingly the deadline for
dispositive motions and motions challenging expert witness testimony, and corrects an erroneous
deadline for the proposed jury instructions and pretrial order. Dkt. No. 28.
Event
JURY TRIAL SET FOR 9:30 a.m. on
Length of Trial
Disclosure of expert testimony under FRCP 226(a)(2) due

Date
September 8, 2025
5 days
February 10, 2025

All motions related to discovery must be filed by

March 10, 2025

Discovery completed by

April 10, 2025

All dispositive motions and motions challenging expert
witness testimony must be filed by this date (see LCR 7(d)).

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
TO CONTINUE TRIAL: 3

May 8, 2025

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

Such motions must be noted for consideration no later than
28 days after this date (see LCR 7(d)).
Settlement conference, if mediation has been requested by
the parties per LCR 39.1, held no later than
All motions in limine must be filed by
Proposed jury instructions and agreed LCR 16.1 Pretrial
Order due, including exhibit list with completed authenticity,
admissibility, and objections fields
Trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions, and deposition
designations due
Pretrial conference

July 8, 2025
August 4, 2025
August 18, 2025
August 25, 2025
TBD

The previous case schedule (Dkt. No. 24) is VACATED.
However, the Court DENIES IN PART the motion (Dkt. No. 28) to the extent it requests
referral to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference. The parties are welcome to pursue
private mediation, but the Court will not refer this matter to a magistrate judge at this stage of the
proceeding. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 39.1(e).
Dated this 25th day of September, 2024.

A
Kymberly K. Evanson
United States District Judge

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
TO CONTINUE TRIAL: 4